Photo: freedigitalphotos.net |
Mr. Bundy was too stubborn, the last rancher
standing in Clarke County, Nevada, clinging to his inconvenient “feral” cattle,
his agreement with the State of Nevada, with the BLM, his “prescriptive rights,”
and his ranch. I thought cattle were
domesticated, not feral, and were raised for beef consumption.
Mr. Bundy may or may not owe the $1 million in
grazing fees. The case is not clear-cut on either side and may go all the way
to the Supreme Court. If someone trespasses or uses someone else’s land for at
least five years without the owner of the land taking legal action, that person
can claim prescriptive rights. In Mr. Bundy’s case, twenty years have lapsed
since payment of fees have been in question. http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/blm-worried-cliven-bundy-might-prescriptive-rights-might-use-defense-court/#2V4JpF3xbCxPfjSW.99
Mark Levin
explained in his April 11th broadcast that “Bundy had agreements with the State
of Nevada before the BLM claimed jurisdiction.” http://politicalarena.org/2014/04/13/former-chief-of-staff-to-attorney-general-ed-meese-says-bundy-is-right/
Photo: freedigitalphoto.net |
Another
lesson missed was that the federal government has huge land holdings,
particularly in the southwest. Lord Monckton mentioned in his article that “almost
one-third of the entire 2.3 billion acres in the country are owned by the
federal government.” He is of the opinion that there should be a statute of
limitations on civil debt, including the right of use. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/hands-off-the-bundy-ranch/
The
BLM citing alleged environmental damage by the Bundy Ranch was not credible
because ranchers grow up caring for the environment that provides their
livelihood. They are not likely to abuse the land or any property that sustains
them and their families for generations.
U.S.
is the world’s largest beef producer and Texas is the leader. Demand from China
and Japan for U.S. beef has increased. Supply is tight, “everything produced is
consumed.” Dry seasons, increased cattle feed prices due to grain use for
ethanol are some of the variables affecting supply and beef prices. Wrangling
Mr. Bundy’s cattle with helicopters and exhausting some to death certainly would
not help the price of beef.
Ranchers
are happy with the higher prices but consumers are looking at an increase of
5-10 percent for steak this year and 10-15 percent for ground beef. Consumers
can switch to cheaper priced meats. Economists call this the substitution effect.
Restaurants are cutting beef portion size and increasing their prices.
According to USDA, “beef and veal prices, which
are already at or near record levels across the country, rose 4 percent in
February and are up 5.4 percent over this time last year. As the largest
monthly increase in beef prices since November 2003, this reflects, in part, an
increase in exports, a decrease in imports, and further reductions in the U.S.
cattle inventory.” http://www.ers.usda.gove/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings.aspx#.UOvOfVevbwt
Replenishing the beef supply is not easy nor
quick. It takes two years for cattle to be ready for slaughter.
There is an environmental push against meat
consumption because cow flatulence produces methane. Methane is one of the
gases which environmentalists blame for global warming. To mitigate such “pollution,”
environmentalists would like to impose a flatulence tax per head.
The Supreme Court ruled in
2007 that animals emit greenhouse gases through flatulence and belching and
pollute the air. The EPA is considering charging any farmer with more than 25 dairy
cows, 50 beef cattle, or 200 pigs an annual fee of $175 for each dairy cow,
$87.50 for each beef cattle and $20 per pig. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epas-air-pollution-target-flatulent-cows/
To influence and discourage the public to
consume meat, a study from the Netherlands by Monique van Nielen of Wageningen
University claims that “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” The
study was done ex post facto, looking at dietary data from 11,000 select people
who developed type 2 diabetes and 15,000 people without diabetes.
The study should have randomly assigned subjects
to eat varying amounts and types of protein. This would have given a better indication
if “too much animal protein is tied to diabetes risk.” Instead, the study
looked at the diets of people who developed diabetes and those who did not. There
were so many other variables besides meat consumption that were not controlled
in the study.
The Diabetes Journal discussed the effect of a
high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet on blood glucose control in people with
type 2 diabetes in a 2004 study. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/53/9/2375.full
The last and most important lesson about the
Bundy land grab standoff in Nevada is heightened awareness to other land grabs,
specifically what House Appropriation Committee Chairman Rep. Harold Rogers
(R-Ky) calls “the biggest land grab in the history of the world” that would
have a “profound economic impact” and it “would absolutely freeze economic
activity in this country.”
What Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky) refers to is the
joint EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers March 2014 proposed rule, Waters of
the United States, to spell out which streams and wetlands are protected under
the Clean Water Act. http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters
During the Congressional budget testimony last
week, it was revealed that Waters of the United States would give the EPA
authority over streams on private property even when the water beds are dry or
have been dry for a long time.
The EPA website posted the rule for a 90-day
commentary period. The science behind the rule has not been completed. Yet EPA
claims that “the proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency
in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act.”
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil
works, Jo-Ellen Darcy, opined that the nation’s waters and wetlands “are
valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations.”
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the
EPA and the USDA are going to regulate 56 farm practices so that farmers no
longer need to ask questions whether their activities are considered exempt
under the Clean Water Act. http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/biggest-land-grab-in-the-history-of-the-world/
“The proposed rule will:
-
Preserve current agricultural exemptions
for Clean Water Act permitting, including:
-
Normal farming, silviculture, and
ranching practices. Those activities include plowing, seeding, cultivating,
minor drainage, and harvesting for production of food, fiber, and forest
products.
-
Upland soil and water conservation
practices.
-
Agricultural storm water discharges.
-
Return flows from irrigated agriculture.
-
Construction and maintenance of farm or
stock ponds or irrigation ditches on dry land.
-
Maintenance of drainage ditches.
-
Construction or maintenance of farm,
forest, and temporary mining roads.
-
Provide greater clarity and certainty to
farmers.
-
Avoid economic burden on agriculture.
-
Encourage the use of voluntary
conservation practices.
-
Be consistent with and support existing
USDA programs.”
Congresswoman Murkowski
and many farmers are troubled that the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), USDA, the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers would
gain so much power as to dictate grazing rights, food production, farming
activities, animal husbandry, and the use of water and energy on private lands.
No comments:
Post a Comment